http://www.scribd.com/doc/74454580/Georgia-Primary-Ballot-Challenge-Re-Obama-Pre-Trial-Order-Farrar
Posted on 12/01/2011 10:01:50 AM PST by rxsid
This doesn't really answer the question. The CRS already put out a memo a couple of years ago and most Congress critters have been lying about Obama's eligibility already. Why would a new memo be needed?? And why would there be any more letters from constituents since Obama supposably put this issue to bed by releasing his forgery??
They probably got a few in 2008, but remember that until late in 2008, October or November, no one held the two-citizen-parent theory.
Technically it's not a two-citizen-parent theory. By common law, only the father's citizenship is passed down by descent. Second, if Obama's father had actually been an immigrant with an intention to become a U.S. citizen or who had naturalized later, a lot of people wouldn't care so much. Barak Sr. had no intention of being a U.S. citizen and his wife planned to go to Kenya with him. How is there any natural allegiance in such a situation?? There isn't any.
The eligibility of the native-born may have been in doubt before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but not in our time.
Only because of massive ignorance and misunderstanding. You help illustrate why. Too many people assume that "native-born" means the same thing as the Constitutional term "natural-born," but as written in Wong Kim Ark, they are separate and unequal terms. Only the latter applies to presidential eligibility and it requires birth to citizen parents.
So quote that “exclusively” part of your favorite decision there. Show where, even in dicta, the Court said *only* that class are NBC.
It's in the formal characterization of those born in the country to parents who were it's citizens.
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
This is a self-limiting statement. Under natural circumstances, if you aren't born in the country to citizen parents, you aren't a natural-born citizen. Your natural condition is that of an alien or foreigner whose citizenship relies on Constitutional or statutory means. In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray said the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. He also cited U.S. v. Rhodes and Shanks v. Dupont in which the courts recognized that upon birth on U.S. soil, one was EITHER a natural-born citizen OR a natural-born subject. You couldn't be both. It was one or the other. The deciding factor was based on the allegiance of the parents, not the place of birth. Those who adhered to the U.S. at this time were citizens, so those born on the soil to citizens were natural-born citizens. Those born on the soil to subjects of the crown were natural-born subjects. This rule prevailed upon the establishment of the U.S. Constitution. Under that rule, Obama is natural-born British subject.
Congress employs experts such as Maskell because Congress need real experts, not pretenders.
One so-called experts does NOT Trump the Supreme Court, especially when that expert makes so many mistakes as have been pointed out.
I wish I could help you find the article. Unfortunately what you describe doesn’t ring a bell for me.
Was it in a National news publication? Or a Blog Posting? I have access to some very powerful subscription search sites, but I have to have something to search for. A title, an Author, a specific subject...
If I can help let me know.
I notice that you did not refute the substance of Leo’s claim - that the CRS report contains badly misrepresented false quotes that bias the findings of the report.
Gee, I wonder why...NOT!
How do we ever recover from the mincemeat the irrational decisions have made of those issues you mentioned?
This is sort of an aside, but illustrates the mincemeat I’m talking about: The whole Roe v Wade decision centered around the claim that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment means “legal person”, not “biological person”. The Dred Scott decision had already decided that though Blacks are biological persons they are not “legal persons”, since the Constitution allowed for Blacks to be slaves even though the Bill of Rights gave guarantees of personal rights.
The 14th Amendment - according to all the legal precedent up to the Roe v Wade decision - extended to every person the legal protections of the Constitution and state and federal statutes. Yet if the 14th Amendment only applies to “legal persons” it never applied to Blacks, who have never been declared by the Constitution to be anything except what the courts had decided in Dred Scott: human livestock, or 2/3 of a person when calculating Congressional representation.
So now we’ve got a Constitutional Amendment which allows to Blacks - human livestock, according to the Dred Scott decision which was never reversed if the Roe v Wade logic is correct - the right to vote.
You could extend that farther and say that if human livestock is guaranteed the right to vote, then equine livestock should also be guaranteed the right to vote....
Etc ad nauseum. When you put arsenic in the water you end up with all kinds of crap, because the logic just doesn’t make sense.
When “logic” is random rather than having to make sense, there can’t be any rule of LAW; it’s all just the rule of MEN. A judge could say ANYTHING, and there would be no constraints.
It reminds me of the game where you have somebody write a paragraph of a story, and then pass that paragraph on to the next person who builds the story in whatever direction they want to go, then pass it on to the next person who does the same. A “living document” that can be shaped however the people who happen to be given the pen choose to shape it. If that is the US Constitution, then we don’t have a real Constitution, nor do we have the rule of law. We have the rule of men, and since all we have is a garbled legal mess, the whole country devolves into a rat-race to buy favors from the people who hold the pen at the moment.
That’s where we’re at right now. So how do we ever get back to sanity?
That is a very good point, even if offered in jest. It does appear the leftists continue to advance the fraud with this latest memo.
However, it is also clear the entire Republican political machine gave Obama a pass at every point in the process during 2008-09. At the local level, even Republican SoS’s either were induced to look the other way for political purposes, or believed the foreign father disqualification to be a federal issue. Unfortunately, resolution of the issue will most likely involve a lengthy and expensive federal lawsuit, and the outcome is uncertain.
As seen elsewhere on FR, NH to its credit and perhaps after analyzing the 2008-09 fiasco, added in 2010 two important elements to its primary election laws. NH now requires a presidential candidate to swear under oath that he or she is a NBC.
So one can ask:
What should NH (or any other state) do with a candidate who has on numerous occasions successfully refused to submit a BC to a court of law for examination, but has released to the public patently fabricated birth documents as proof of birthplace?
Shouldn’t those facts raise a reasonable question as to the validity of a declaration regarding place of birth sworn by that candidate?
Wouldn’t it be reasonable for the state to request that the candidate authorize the state of birth to provide it with copies of birth documents together with certification that those documents establish the actual birthplace?
Wouldn’t such a transaction be a sensible, quick and inexpensive means of resolving questions re the validity of the candidate’s declaration, at least as to the first of the two elements of NBC?
The specific question for NH legislators: “What was your intent with the 2010 legislation if it was not to enforce it?
That is a very good point, even if offered in jest. It does appear the leftists continue to advance the fraud with this latest memo.
However, it is also clear the entire Republican political machine gave Obama a pass at every point in the process during 2008-09. At the local level, even Republican SoS’s either were induced to look the other way for political purposes, or believed the foreign father disqualification to be a federal issue. Unfortunately, resolution of the issue will most likely involve a lengthy and expensive federal lawsuit, and the outcome is uncertain.
As seen elsewhere on FR, NH to its credit and perhaps after analyzing the 2008-09 fiasco, added in 2010 two important elements to its primary election laws. NH now requires a presidential candidate to swear under oath that he or she is a NBC.
So one can ask:
What should NH (or any other state) do with a candidate who has on numerous occasions successfully refused to submit a BC to a court of law for examination, but has released to the public patently fabricated birth documents as proof of birthplace?
Shouldn’t those facts raise a reasonable question as to the validity of a declaration regarding place of birth sworn by that candidate?
Wouldn’t it be reasonable for the state to request that the candidate authorize the state of birth to provide it with copies of birth documents together with certification that those documents establish the actual birthplace?
Wouldn’t such a transaction be a sensible, quick and inexpensive means of resolving questions re the validity of the candidate’s declaration, at least as to the first of the two elements of NBC?
The specific question for NH legislators: “What was your intent with the 2010 legislation if it was not to enforce it?
Oooops, a Mae West.
"So 39 years ago, why did my Teacher tell our 5th grade class this theory in 1972? Could it be a time warp? Without 2 US citizens as parents, you have legitimate claims to foreign citizenship. That's a sorry ass fact for our sorry ass Kenyan president, isn't it?"No, that's just unreliable memory. In other threads we've checked out what actual civics textbooks said. No one could find a single one supporting your theory. On the other hand:
Our Federal Government: How it Works, 1958: "Anyone aspiring to the highest office in the land must have been born in the United States, and he must be at least thirty-five years of age. To ensure the fact that his interests really lie within the country, the Constitution also demands that the candidate have lived for fourteen years prior to his election in the United States."
According to Civics for Citizens, 1965: "A natural-born citizen is one born in the United States or in one of its possessions."
According to Our Constitution and What it Means, 1975: "The President must be born in the United States or born of citizens of the United States."
Hat tip to Vickery2010 and Kleon for the citations. There's more if you want.
Bullshit.
I remember it like it was yesterday. Maybe she learned it in college.
She told us that most people assume it is just being born on US Soil. She then said that others think it must include two citizen parents, otherwise you could have a dual citizen become president, which is unthinkable. The class was pretty surprised, but well informed. It left an impression.
She said that scholars have searched for the term “natural born Citizen” trying to pin down the meaning. Funny thing is, ominously and dramatically, she said one day it might have to be resolved. That was her very last statement on the subject.
She was a beauty. Big blue eyes, long black hair. Always in a skin tight dress. A knock out. When she spoke, the boys listened. Her last words left it as a mystery in our minds as to how this would play out.
So we now have a half American president, pitting citizen against citizen, who calls Kenya his home country. Who has the balls to campaign there while he is a US senator. And people understand, intuitively, that the constitution has been violated. We can see the writings of Americas first historian and founder, Davis Ramsay. His writings tell us that it requires citizen parents. We see statements by Senators in the 1800’s that say the same thing. That it requires citizen parents.
So it seems your text books are worthless. The constitution may have been written by dead white guys, but it and its founders writings and words trump a text book for a public school.
From 1883
http://books.google.com/books?id=YfZDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
“There are two conditions required to make a natural-born citizen - parentage and place of birth.”
Summary: Jus soli and jus sangunis apply.
Washington Law Reporter - 1903 page 824
http://books.google.com/books?id=_cUZAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
“The conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is a natural-born citizen.”
Summary: Jus sanguinis applies, jus soli is not germane.
None of your citations precludes that the parents must be citizens. And as we all know, none of them Trump the SCOTUS definition on NBC written in Minor and affirmed in WKA: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74454580/Georgia-Primary-Ballot-Challenge-Re-Obama-Pre-Trial-Order-Farrar
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789
this was .Georgia-Terry-v-Handel-2008?????
In Georgia-Terry-v-Handel the Attorney General presents his case why obama cannot be vetted...seems this will be used in the ballot cases.
Plantiff was seeking bc.
Oh dear, our Kenyan Master has a busy legal plate...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.